Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bonding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District hears bond-financing options: $50M to $75M scenarios with modest tax impacts
Summary
Financial adviser Mike LaValle told the Casa Grande Union High School District board that the district has bonding capacity near $145 million and presented two voter-election scenarios — $50 million (structured to keep bond tax rate at or below current levels) and $75 million (projected to raise the bond rate by roughly 4¢) — and advised a mid‑June deadline to place a question on a November ballot.
Mike LaValle, a financial adviser with Stifel, told the Casa Grande Union High School District governing board that the district currently has substantial theoretical bonding capacity and outlined sample bond-election scenarios for the board to consider. "Currently, your bonding capacity is about a $145,000,000," LaValle said, citing the statutory formula that uses net full cash assessed value to estimate capacity.
LaValle explained how assessed valuations and the county's limited assessed value interact to produce tax rates, and noted the district’s bond tax rate is currently about 31¢. He offered two example packages: a $50 million bond that could be structured "at or below 31¢ going forward," and a $75 million option that he projected would raise the bond-tax component roughly to the low‑ to mid‑30¢ range. "We can structure those bonds in such a way where we keep it at or below 31¢ going forward," he said, adding that a $50 million scenario translates to an average annual impact of roughly 21¢ on a $100,000 tax‑value home (about $21.47 per year), while the larger scenario increases that impact to roughly $33 per year on that same tax value.
LaValle reviewed the district’s near-term debt timeline: two remaining scheduled debt payments and the opportunity that creates. He highlighted that current outstanding debt is scheduled to be largely paid off within the next year, which could make a November bond election an opportune moment to maintain or slightly change the district’s bond tax rate rather than let the rate fall to zero and require a larger increase later. (The transcript contained an incorrect year in one line describing the final debt payment; the correct final scheduled payment date LaValle described is July 1, 2026.)
Board members asked about market volatility and assessed-value trends. LaValle reminded the board there is typically a lag between market changes and tax-value calculations and said districts can respond by accelerating or delaying projects if assessed values fall. He also recommended a practical election calendar, noting mid‑June as a reasonable deadline to call for a November election and describing additional preparatory steps the district should take — refining project estimates, potentially commissioning community polling, and returning to the board with costed scenarios.
The next procedural steps the superintendent described were to convene a facilities committee to review the needs assessment and to survey the community before the board returns with refined options. LaValle and district staff said they would model additional bond-size scenarios once the board and staff provide project estimates.
